文件与报告库

Uganda - Second Local Government Development Project (LGDP II) (英语)

摘要

Ratings for the Second Local Government Development Project (LGDP II) in Uganda were as follows: outcomes were moderately unsatisfactory, the risk to development outcome was high, the Bank performance was moderately satisfactory, and the Borrower performance... 更多显示Ratings for the Second Local Government Development Project (LGDP II) in Uganda were as follows: outcomes were moderately unsatisfactory, the risk to development outcome was high, the Bank performance was moderately satisfactory, and the Borrower performance was also moderately unsatisfactory. Lessons learned included: policy reversals can cause serious damage to otherwise significant project outcomes, and are difficult to counter. District proliferation or reduction in un-earmarked funding or local governments' rights to raise revenues need to be monitored closely as they could be an early signal of policy reversal. Monitoring should be focused on outcome in addition to process indicators and unified across sectors. Decentralization is not a sector, while it was treated as such in Uganda with a sector working group, a sector investment plan and specific donor support. Decentralization of service delivery affects all sectors of the economy and should be supported in a harmonized way across sectors and donor programs. Many conditional grants to Local Governments are funded through donor programs. A fully decentralized sector allocation, supported through government budgets, requires a change in the way donors allocate funds across sectors within a given country as such allocations cannot be determined a priori any more if the choice of sectors is truly delegated to Local Governments and communities. This is often incompatible with the development cooperation frameworks of bilateral donors, or the sector-specific teams and earmarked funds of multilaterals, that work in tandem with line ministries in developing countries like Uganda.
更少显示